3-2 vote downs senior tax break

Amendment 11 at issue

Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 11:35 a.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.

The County Commission on Tuesday rejected a new tax cut for elderly low-income residents, fearing an opening of the door to further tax loopholes and arguing that, as one commissioner put it, the proposal mirrored the “progressive liberal tax policy” emanating from Washington.

The all-Republican board was divided 3-2 on the question of Amendment 11, a provision of the state Constitution that authorized cities and counties to grant seniors an additional residential tax break.

Yet the majority's stance didn't just part with their colleagues; their rationale also seemed split from two generations of the GOP's general thinking about tax policy.

The initiative would have affected people 65 and older who meet certain criteria.

The intended beneficiaries must have a household income of less than $27,030 a year, own a home with a market value of $250,000 or less, and have lived in that home for at least 25 years.

The board heard from several people on both sides, although advocates of the exemption outnumbered opponents.

Proponents maintained that these longtime residents had helped sustain Marion County through their taxes and support of local businesses, and needed a helping hand in their twilight years.

They also argued that a solid majority wanted the board to pass this tax break.

Amendment 11 was supported by 61 percent of county voters, as well as 61 percent of voters statewide.

In addition, advocates pointed out that the Republican-dominated Legislature had voted unanimously to put the question on last year's ballot.

Ocala resident Delphine Herbert noted that she would not benefit from the tax exemption, but wanted to advocate for those who would.

“As public servants, your job is first to consider the needs of longtime residents of modest means in the waning years of their lives, not international privateers who come here to pillage our most precious resources,” Herbert said.

“Of course the county needs money to lift the tide for every resident,” she added, but the County Commission manages to financially aid major corporations “while choosing to play Scrooge with our elderly.”

“I ask you that the poor and the most vulnerable not be pushed off the fiscal cliff,” she added.

Critics, on the other hand, challenged the fiscal responsibility of enacting the tax break. They praised the board for keeping property tax rates low and stable over the past few years.

They also expressed concern that the tax exemption would prove more costly over time and further decay a county tax base already eroded by plummeting property values.

“Just because 61 percent of the people voted for it doesn't give them the right to go right through our wallets and take money out of the people who didn't vote for it,” Sparr resident Steve Hunter said.

“I'm sympathetic to the need to have a permanent tax reduction, but that creates a particular group of people that get a property tax reduction that the rest of us have to pay for, and I don't agree with that approach.”

Commissioners Earl Arnett, who championed the measure, and David Moore supported the exemption.

Arnett said he favored the tax break because it would provide seniors more purchasing power for essentials like food and medicine.

Moore added that he was “reluctantly” behind it because “this is something we can do to help people.”

The rest of the commission that killed the exemption indicated that they understood the reasoning for the support, but couldn't go along because of what Chairwoman Kathy Bryant called “unintended consequences.”

Those would result, the majority maintained, from adding a new exemption to a tax system that's already laden with tax breaks and afflicted with declining property tax values.

A staff estimate pegged the cost of the exemption for qualified taxpayers at about $162,000.

The county expects to collect $44.5 million in property tax revenues this year — which is about 31 percent of the general fund, or the money fed by all taxpayers within the county and outside revenues.

Overall, the county's current spending plan is set at $525 million.

County fiscal manager John Schaefer told the board that he could only speculate, but suggested that the revenue hole would widen in the future.

Nonetheless, and despite suggestions that the board was not accounting for affected seniors who would die off, Bryant at one point in the session predicted the cost would eventually reach $1 million a year.

“If we do this, we are opening Pandora's box,” Bryant said.

“Our property tax system is broke. It is. It's not right that only property owners support everything that goes on in our community. Only property owners support our county government. Only property owners make sure that when someone picks up that phone to dial 911 somebody is going to be there on the other end to help. That system is not right. Everybody should pay, but unfortunately they don't.”

Bryant, however, said people should feel free to contact her if they know of a senior citizen who needs help paying their property taxes, and she would try to assist.

By that, he meant that fewer people would be shouldering the burden. And he, too, argued that the system was unfair and that there would be a “cumulative effect” on revenues if Amendment 11 were enacted.

“I don't think it's right that you don't ask anyone in the community to participate in helping pay for government,” McClain said.

“Once you do one (exemption), if you have no philosophical basis for not doing them, it can't stop ... because all of them are good exemptions.”

Commissioner Carl Zalak also said he personally would do “anything” to help a senior at risk of losing his or her home.

“But to pass an exemption in our tax code,” he added, “means that there is no value in having the government, that there is no value in having a paved road or an ambulance that will come there and get you, or any of these other things.”

The exemptions, Zalak said, continue to “eat away” at “charity” for the elderly and less fortunate that ought to be provided by churches and nonprofit groups.

“For us to, across the board, give exemptions for those people that we feel deserve them is exactly what we're against, commissioners,” Zalak told his colleagues.

“It's exactly picking winners and losers over and over and over again. And how can we stomach that? How can we continue to say, ‘These folks deserve it, but these ones are not deserving.' When does it stop? And how does it stop?”

<p>The County Commission on Tuesday rejected a new tax cut for elderly low-income residents, fearing an opening of the door to further tax loopholes and arguing that, as one commissioner put it, the proposal mirrored the “progressive liberal tax policy” emanating from Washington.</p><p>The all-Republican board was divided 3-2 on the question of Amendment 11, a provision of the state Constitution that authorized cities and counties to grant seniors an additional residential tax break.</p><p>Yet the majority's stance didn't just part with their colleagues; their rationale also seemed split from two generations of the GOP's general thinking about tax policy.</p><p>The initiative would have affected people 65 and older who meet certain criteria.</p><p>The intended beneficiaries must have a household income of less than $27,030 a year, own a home with a market value of $250,000 or less, and have lived in that home for at least 25 years.</p><p>The board heard from several people on both sides, although advocates of the exemption outnumbered opponents.</p><p>Proponents maintained that these longtime residents had helped sustain Marion County through their taxes and support of local businesses, and needed a helping hand in their twilight years.</p><p>They also argued that a solid majority wanted the board to pass this tax break.</p><p>Amendment 11 was supported by 61 percent of county voters, as well as 61 percent of voters statewide.</p><p>In addition, advocates pointed out that the Republican-dominated Legislature had voted unanimously to put the question on last year's ballot.</p><p>Ocala resident Delphine Herbert noted that she would not benefit from the tax exemption, but wanted to advocate for those who would.</p><p>“As public servants, your job is first to consider the needs of longtime residents of modest means in the waning years of their lives, not international privateers who come here to pillage our most precious resources,” Herbert said.</p><p>“Of course the county needs money to lift the tide for every resident,” she added, but the County Commission manages to financially aid major corporations “while choosing to play Scrooge with our elderly.”</p><p>“I ask you that the poor and the most vulnerable not be pushed off the fiscal cliff,” she added.</p><p>Critics, on the other hand, challenged the fiscal responsibility of enacting the tax break. They praised the board for keeping property tax rates low and stable over the past few years.</p><p>They also expressed concern that the tax exemption would prove more costly over time and further decay a county tax base already eroded by plummeting property values.</p><p>“Just because 61 percent of the people voted for it doesn't give them the right to go right through our wallets and take money out of the people who didn't vote for it,” Sparr resident Steve Hunter said.</p><p>“I'm sympathetic to the need to have a permanent tax reduction, but that creates a particular group of people that get a property tax reduction that the rest of us have to pay for, and I don't agree with that approach.”</p><p>Commissioners Earl Arnett, who championed the measure, and David Moore supported the exemption.</p><p>Arnett said he favored the tax break because it would provide seniors more purchasing power for essentials like food and medicine.</p><p>Moore added that he was “reluctantly” behind it because “this is something we can do to help people.”</p><p>The rest of the commission that killed the exemption indicated that they understood the reasoning for the support, but couldn't go along because of what Chairwoman Kathy Bryant called “unintended consequences.”</p><p>Those would result, the majority maintained, from adding a new exemption to a tax system that's already laden with tax breaks and afflicted with declining property tax values.</p><p>A staff estimate pegged the cost of the exemption for qualified taxpayers at about $162,000.</p><p>The county expects to collect $44.5 million in property tax revenues this year — which is about 31 percent of the general fund, or the money fed by all taxpayers within the county and outside revenues.</p><p>Overall, the county's current spending plan is set at $525 million.</p><p>County fiscal manager John Schaefer told the board that he could only speculate, but suggested that the revenue hole would widen in the future.</p><p>Nonetheless, and despite suggestions that the board was not accounting for affected seniors who would die off, Bryant at one point in the session predicted the cost would eventually reach $1 million a year.</p><p>“If we do this, we are opening Pandora's box,” Bryant said.</p><p>“Our property tax system is broke. It is. It's not right that only property owners support everything that goes on in our community. Only property owners support our county government. Only property owners make sure that when someone picks up that phone to dial 911 somebody is going to be there on the other end to help. That system is not right. Everybody should pay, but unfortunately they don't.”</p><p>Bryant, however, said people should feel free to contact her if they know of a senior citizen who needs help paying their property taxes, and she would try to assist.</p><p>Commissioner Stan McClain claimed approving the new tax break was akin to feeding the “progressive liberal tax policy” coming from Washington.</p><p>By that, he meant that fewer people would be shouldering the burden. And he, too, argued that the system was unfair and that there would be a “cumulative effect” on revenues if Amendment 11 were enacted.</p><p>“I don't think it's right that you don't ask anyone in the community to participate in helping pay for government,” McClain said.</p><p>“Once you do one (exemption), if you have no philosophical basis for not doing them, it can't stop ... because all of them are good exemptions.”</p><p>Commissioner Carl Zalak also said he personally would do “anything” to help a senior at risk of losing his or her home.</p><p>“But to pass an exemption in our tax code,” he added, “means that there is no value in having the government, that there is no value in having a paved road or an ambulance that will come there and get you, or any of these other things.”</p><p>The exemptions, Zalak said, continue to “eat away” at “charity” for the elderly and less fortunate that ought to be provided by churches and nonprofit groups.</p><p>“For us to, across the board, give exemptions for those people that we feel deserve them is exactly what we're against, commissioners,” Zalak told his colleagues.</p><p>“It's exactly picking winners and losers over and over and over again. And how can we stomach that? How can we continue to say, 'These folks deserve it, but these ones are not deserving.' When does it stop? And how does it stop?”</p><p>Also Tuesday, the commission:</p><p>- Unanimously approved a $350,000 grant to local trucking magnate Larry Roberts, who has pledged to create 250 new jobs in Ocala paying $47,000 a year. (See related story, Page 1.)</p><p>- Backed a staffing reorganization by County Administrator Lee Niblock that saved an estimated $134,413 — which would have covered about 83 percent of the cost of implementing Amendment 11.</p><p>- Set a March 19 hearing date for a proposed anti-panhandling ordinance.</p><p><i>Contact Bill Thompson at 867-4117 or at bill.thompson@starbanner.com.</i></p>